[arch-general] PATH variable not set in DE (GNOME)

[Carl Lei]

/etc/environment is an option.  This is used by pam_env, and applies to 
all PAM-authenticated sessions.

However /etc/profile.d is used by most DEs.  Did you export PATH?

On 2015年04月25日 09:03, Maximilian Kaul wrote:
> Hello list,
> I'm currently experiencing something weird on a (less than regularly,
> but recently) updated Arch machine. After the last update some graphical
> programs that rely on the path variable being properly set stopped
> working. In particular one application uses exiftool, and works properly
> if started from the command line. However, if I open an image, the
> application complains that it can not find exiftool.
> So I checked in a terminal:
>
> $ which exiftool
> /usr/bin/vendor_perl/exiftool
>
> $ echo $PATH
> .../usr/bin/vendor_perl...
>
> BUT
> if I put the following code in a file
>
> #!/bin/sh
> env > /tmp/env
>
> and execute it via GNOME (double click the file and select 'run') and
> then check the PATH variable in /tmp/env it does _not_ include the perl
> directory.
>
> What is the correct way to set this variable? I always thought it is set
> in /etc/profile.d/ but it is already there.
>
> # grep -R vendor_perl /etc
> grep: /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/lm_sensors.service: No such file or directory
> grep: /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/S.gpg-agent: No such device or address
> /etc/profile.d/perlbin.csh:[ -d /usr/bin/vendor_perl ] && setenv PATH ${PATH}:/usr/bin/vendor_perl
> /etc/profile.d/perlbin.csh:[ -d /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/bin ] && setenv PATH ${PATH}:/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/bin
> /etc/profile.d/perlbin.sh:[ -d /usr/bin/vendor_perl ] && PATH=$PATH:/usr/bin/vendor_perl
> /etc/profile.d/perlbin.sh:[ -d /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/bin ] && PATH=$PATH:/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/bin
>
> Is there some way I do not know about? Is this a GNOME problem, or is
> something else causing this?
>
> The program used to run and find exiftool. I checked with the developer
> because my first thought was that they changed something about how they
> detect exiftool. They did not.
>
> Thank you for your help!
> Maximilian
>